Exploring how sound and noise impact wellbeing in office design

Indeed, managing perceived levels of sound by defining the background sound conditions (i.e. background noise criteria and masking sound) for a given space is only the first step; it then becomes possible to use the remaining acoustical strategies involved in the “ABC Rule” to manage the transmission of sound into (or out of) spaces to maintain those conditions as closely as possible: “A,” which stands for “absorb,” and “B,” which stands for “block.” For example, Figure 1 shows various sources of sound and its transmission toward a building/rooms. The use of outdoor barriers, the building envelope, internal walls, and furniture attenuate the level of sound from various sources that differ in their level, spectral properties, and location. The use of absorptive tools, such as panels, ceiling tiles, and carpet help remove acoustic energy that, if not successfully blocked, would continue to reverberate after entering these spaces.

In other words, application of masking also informs decisions regarding wall construction (e.g. sound transmission class [STC] ratings; full or partial height), ceiling selection (e.g. noise reduction coefficient [NRC] and ceiling attenuation class [CAC] ratings), and other acoustical materials such as absorptive panels, tying it thereby more closely with architectural and acoustical design.

In conclusion

Failure to incorporate appropriate acoustical solutions raises concerns for occupants’ physical and psychological safety, along with potential impacts on organizational diversity and productivity. While most building design professionals are familiar with the “ABC Rule”—and, indeed, that one must use a holistic approach to achieve the desired experiential outcome—the role of background sound (the “C”) remains widely misunderstood.

Fine-tuning the acoustical vernacular helps identify acoustic conditions that provoke adverse effects, and how sound can be used to mitigate them. At the same time, looking to recent research to further the understanding between “acoustics” and “human perception” (specifically within the realm of psychoacoustics, even prior to the complexities introduced by the architectural environment) provides a framework for achieving “optimal acoustic conditions”—one formerly obscured by reluctance to speak openly about mental health and neurological differences, as well as the ease with which noise complaints were dismissed as neurotic, weak, or self-centered.

While the vagaries of individual perception are worth exploring, the interest ultimately lies in the practice of acoustics within a communal workplace environment. Addressing the issues the POE data has brought forth—and transforming occupant-centric objectives into quantifiable acoustic criteria—requires a nuanced exploration of sound’s attributes. This encompasses not only its level, but also its spectral, spatial, and temporal qualities, within the context of common objectives such as achieving acoustic comfort and maintaining acoustical privacy.